First up is the SpaceX Dragon, which is arguably the front runner in the CCP given it’s successful unmanned cargo mission to the ISS. The Dragon, of course, is designed to launch atop SpaceX’s own Falcon 9.

Next up is SNC’s Dream Chaser lifting body design. SNC isn’t producing a booster, the Dream Chaser is intended to launch atop a ULA Atlas V, though it could possibly be lofted by other man-rated boosters as well.

Next is the Boeing CST-100. While Boeing does have their own booster, the Delta IV (currently produced via the ULA joint venture with Lockheed Martin), there are currently no plans to man-rate it. At this time the CST-100 is planned to launch atop the Atlas V, though it may also use the Falcon 9.

Next is ULA with the Atlas V. Now, the Atlas V is an established launch platform for satellites and unmanned probes, but the CCP work will involve man-rating the launcher so that it can carry vehicles such as the Dream Chaser and CST-100 safely.

And lastly we have the ATK Liberty. Liberty looks an awful lot like the Ares I from NASA’s now-defunct Constellation program, and with good reason. ATK was developing the first stage of the Ares I, which was basically going to be a five segment evolution of the four segment Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster. When the Constellation program was cancelled, ATK was well along in the design and testing of their first stage, so they decided to go forward with the work on their own. As NASA was going to develop the second stage of the Ares I they needed to replace it. Rather than design something from scratch they turned to an existing design, the European Ariane 5. The second stage of Liberty is the core first stage of the Ariane 5, with modifications of course.

ATK has also decided to develop their own crew capsule, rather than using Boeing’s CST-100 or the NASA/Lockheed Martin Orion. ATK’s capsule will be based on a composite demonstrator they produced for NASA as part of the Orion project during Constellation. While it was decided not to use a composite structure for Orion, ATK has decided to use their experience building the demonstrator to produce their own capsule. So they’re looking to produce a complete end-to-end system, like SpaceX with the Falcon 9 and Dragon.

There is another participant that doesn’t seem to have a video, yet anyway, and that’s Blue Origin. They’re working on yet another capsule design, this one with a unique biconic shape, which they’re simply calling Space Vehicle. It will initially launch atop the Atlas V, but Blue Origin plans to produce their own Reusable Booster System in the future.

Of course, there are several videos of the events. The press briefing before the unberthing:

The unberthing itself. Watch closely at the 5:40 mark and you can see the Draco thrusters fire in the first departure burn. It is just a small bright spot in the thruster bell.

The descent and splashdown video is fairly poor, but I still think it is interesting:

And last, but not least, a press briefing to wrap everything up:

While these unmanned cargo flights are certainly a major achievement, the next big step for Dragon is manned flight. SpaceX is working on the systems necessary to enable the Dragon to conduct manned flights, with an eye toward NASA’s Commercial Crew effort. With this successful flight Dragon is certainly the odds on favorite to be selected to carry crew to the ISS. But SpaceX isn’t the only company working on manned orbital vehicles.

Boeing is working on their CST-100, a manned capsule similar in concept to Dragon. The CST-100 is being designed for operations to the ISS, as well as the commercial stations planned by Bigelow Aerospace. They’ve been conducting drop tests of a boilerplate capsule (which means it is just representative of the shape and weight distribution, and is not the actual capsule design) to verify the parachute and airbag landing system:

Also in the hunt is Sierra Nevada Corporation with their Dream Chaser lifting body. The Dream Chaser looks more like a vehicle of the future than the capsule designs, something more appropriate for Buck Rogers or John Crichton. The basic shape is similar to NASA’s HL-20 concept from the 90s, and reaches back to the lifting body research programs of the 60s and 70s such as the HL-10, M2, and X-24. I have to say I’d really love to see the Dream Chaser become operational, if only because it looks like the future. SNC has been conducting captive carry tests of a test article in preparation for drop testing:

The vehicle builders aren’t the only ones working on future systems, NASA is preparing as well. The giant Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB), constructed for the Saturn V program and used for the Shuttle, is being thoroughly modernized to be ready for the next generation of rockets. Not only is it being redesigned to handle NASA’s own planned Space Launch System, but commercial rockets and spacecraft as well:

To wrap it all up, a recent episode of This Week At NASA included segments on SpaceX Dragon, Orbital Sciences Corporations Cygnus capsule (a competitor to Dragon for commercial cargo delivery to ISS, but not intended for crew), the Boeing CST-100, SNC Dream Chaser, NASA Space Launch System, and more:

NASA TV shared videos of the opening and initial entry, as well as a Q&A event with the astronauts inside the Dragon:

Note that I said berthing and not docking – they’re different. The Space Shuttle docked with the ISS. The Soyuz, Progress, and ATV (European Automated Transfer Vehicle) dock with the ISS. The HTV (Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle) and Dragon berth. Docking is done under the craft’s own power and control. The craft flies toward a docking port on the ISS and moves into contact on its own. Berthing is handled by the station’s remote arm. The craft flies in toward the port, but stops about ten meters away and flies in formation with the ISS. The station’s arm reaches out and grapples the craft, and then draws it in to meet the docking, or berthing in this case, port.

Berthing is simpler than docking, but that’s all relative – neither is particularly simple. But berthing does require less from the approaching craft, and it is easier to get certified for berthing than for docking. The Dragon may dock on its own in the future, but it will evolve there. Certainly the plans to fly to Bigelow Aerospace’s planned private space station call for docking, as the station will not have an arm like the ISS. But docking is ‘good enough’ for the current mission, and autonomous docking is something that can be added to Dragon later.

NASA TV has a video of the approach, grapple, and berthing:

For some reason they slightly edited the version posted to YouTube and cut out the CapCom from the ISS including the “got a Dragon by the tail” like, which I thought was the best line in the video.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden called the ISS to congratulate them on the successful berthing:

There was a post-berthing briefing as well, which covers a bit of what comes next:

Yesterday, as part of the tests to gain clearance for the berthing, Dragon flew below the ISS. This video shows the fly-under:

There was also a briefing last night for the truly interested:

I love the celebration at the end of the video once Dragon is in orbit and the solar panels have deployed. And an interesting contrast when they cut over to NASA’s ISS control room – a slightly different wardrobe for one.

Now the testing begins, hopefully culminating in a successful berthing at the ISS and a good re-entry.

EDIT: SpaceX posted the full hour long webcast from the launch:

In short, the flight computer aborted the launch at T?00:00:00.5. One half second before launch. It did so because it detected an abnormally high combustion chamber pressure on engine number five. And SpaceX has already diagnosed the problem – as they announced via Twitter:

Inspections found a faulty check valve on engine #5. We are replacing tonight. Next attempt Tuesday, 5/22 at 3:44 AM ET

As soon as the launch was aborted some critics started commenting on how this was a failure, and even that it shows commercial services aren’t able to supply the ISS, etc. Sure, this was a launch failure – the Falcon 9 didn’t launch, QED. But the rocket is intact and as SpaceX said they’ll be trying to launch again in a couple of days. It demonstrates that the design is sound in that it not only works when everything goes as planned – which is frankly the easy part – but it also handles anomalies.

The computer was able to detect the out-of-spec condition in the moments before launch and safely abort rather than launch and risk a catastrophic failure in flight. SpaceX’s hold-down launch system worked as designed and the rocket never moved an inch. The Falcon 9 was safed successfully, without any damage and is ready to fly again during the next launch window. That’s remarkable when compared to legacy systems. SpaceX designed multiple levels of safety and redundancy into not only the vehicle hardware and software itself, but also the policies and procedures. They’re doing it right.

Critics are quick to pounce on the ‘failure’, but how many failures have the legacy players had in their systems – including catastrophic failures? This is rocket science. It isn’t easy. While I was disappointed that the launch was aborted, it really shows the robustness of the system. And that’s a good thing, in the big picture.

So while it was a failure in the specific launch abort, it was a success in demonstrating the strength of the system overall. No one should expect SpaceX to get it right the first time, every time. There will be a learning curve. But things like this show that they’ve certainly done a lot to improve their odds.

I’m looking forward to the next attempt.

Also related to the SLS, the last of the 15 remaining RS-25D flight engines, formerly known as the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME), has been delivered to storage at Stennis. The plan is to use up the existing RS-25D engines on the expendable core stage of the new SLS before switching over to new-build, cheaper RS-25E engines designed to be expendable. The RS-25D has a number of features required in their role as reusable engines on the space shuttle which just aren’t necessary for an expendable engine. But the existing engines still have life left, so they’ll go out in a blaze of glory on one last mission on the SLS.

In more immediate news, the SpaceX COTS 2+ Mission, aka Falcon 9 Flight 3, which has been rescheduled a few times is now set to launch this morning, Saturday, May 19, at 04:55ET. This will be the first launch of a commercial spacecraft, the Dragon capsule, to the International Space Station. A truly historic event – and they have a live webcast on YouTube! It is set to start at 04:15ET – you can join now, there is a timer counting down to the start of the webcast:

You can also watch on NASA TV:

Live video for mobile from Ustream

And for something different, the recent Lyrid meteor shower as filmed from the ISS:

There isn’t a lot to see in the video, the test firing only lasts for two seconds before the planned abort. I still think it is fun to watch, and it shows just how sparse SpaceX’s pad infrastructure is. When they start manned flights of the Dragon I suppose they’ll need a more traditional service tower for crew access.

I’m excited for the mission, while at the same time trying to temper that with the knowledge that it is very much a test flight and there is a good chance it won’t go off as planned. But if anything does go wrong SpaceX is committed to learning from the mission and trying again, just as they did with the first few Falcon 1 flights which, while failing as a larger mission, we successful as instructive test flights, leading to eventual success. And ultimately to the successful flight of the Falcon 9 and Dragon.

Good luck and godspeed, SpaceX!

I love shock diamonds:

And for those who like their aerospace pr0n a little more raw, a version of just the test without the music and such:

You might wonder what ‘other destinations’ there are in LEO. Well, if you listen to the video you’ll hear Bigelow Aerospace mentioned as having built the test rig. Bigelow is working with Boeing on the CST-100, because Bigelow is working on a commercial space station and they need a way to get there. Bigelow’s technology is based on the inflatable TransHab technology NASA developed – and cancelled.

Unlike the Orion and old Apollo capsules, the CST-100 is not meant to splash down in water, but rather to touch down on dry land, like the Russian Soyuz. All capsules descend under parachutes. At the last moment the Soyuz fires retrorockets mounted in the rigging to brake the descent to touch down relatively gently. The CST-100 is going a different route, instead deploying airbags from underneath the heat shield, to soften the impact. That is what we see being tested in the video.

The SpaceX Dragon is initially making water landings as an expedient, but the long term goal is to use thrusters to make a controlled vertical touch down on dry land. The idea is that the same thrusters can be used as the emergency escape system to push the capsule away from the booster during a launch mishap. (That’s what the tower sticking off the nose of an Apollo or Orion capsule is for. SpaceX plans to use ‘pusher’ rockets instead of a ‘puller’ tower.) The Dream Chaser, of course, will land on a runway.

The SLS will initially use the RS-25D, also known as the SSME – or Space Shuttle Main Engine. NASA has a stockpile of these from the shuttle program. Later this will change to a cheaper RS-25E, or expendable, version. Whereas the RS-25D was reused on multiple shuttle flights, engines used on the SLS will be discarded. So there is no need to build the engines to higher standards for reusability. NASA is only using the RS-25D initially since they already have a stockpile of them and with the retirement of the shuttle they have nothing else useful to do with them. The RS-68B the Ares V was to use would’ve been a version of the RS-68/68A already in use on the Delta IV launcher, designed to be expendable.

Most of the increased lift from the evolved version of the SLS will come from new rocket boosters. NASA is expected to compete the design of the new boosters, which could be liquid or solid fueled. But that is still a ‘when and if’ question, since they need to get the initial design off the ground first.

I’m disappointed because I grew up with one program after another promising great leaps. The X-30 National Aerospace Plane – cancelled. The DC-X Delta Clipper – cancelled. (Though Jeff Bezo’s Blue Origin New Shepard program looks to be the spiritual successor.) The X-33 VentureStar – cancelled. The X-34 – cancelled. The X-38 Crew Return Vehicle – cancelled. And, of course, the Constellation Program was cancelled.

At least the Air Force picked up the X-37 after NASA dumped it.

With each cancellation the programs have seemed to get less ambitious. No more space planes, reusable launch vehicles, etc. We’re back to the gumdrop on a stick capsules. Much of the technology in the SLS can trace its development right back to the Apollo program, and the rest is a pretty direct link to the shuttle. There’s not much that can be considered new. That’s safe and (relatively) cheap, but not all that inspiring, at least to me. The first generation SLS reminds me very strongly of the aborted Ares IV concept, which would’ve been kind of a combination of the lower stages of the Ares V and the upper stages of the Ares I.

Frankly I’m a lot more inspired these days by what’s going on in the commercial sector. And I don’t me the traditional giants like Boeing, Lockheed, Ariane, the Russians, etc. But the space start ups that are doing new things. Blue Origin and their New Shepard, as well as their other projects. Sierra Nevada and their Dream Chaser space plane (based on concepts from the cancelled NASA HL-20). But most especially Elon Musk’s SpaceX and their Falcon launchers and Dragon capsule.

SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy is being designed to lift 53 metric tons to LEO. With concepts for the Falcon X Heavy and Falcon XX lifting 125 and 140 metric tons, respectively. While those are still concepts the Falcon 9 has already flown, and the Falcon Heavy is a direct evolution of the Falcon 9 (it was formerly known as the Falcon 9 Heavy) and it is in active development. While it won’t lift even as much as the first generation SLS, I find it more inspirational because it is a small private company developing everything from scratch. There is no legacy technology in the Falcon program, they’ve been inventing a new generation of rocket technology. And so far they’ve been very successful.

While the SLS will surely be a very impressive vehicle if it ever flies, don’t get me wrong, right now that is a very big if given NASA’s track record with programs. I’m not sure we wouldn’t be better off giving the money to companies like SpaceX to accelerate development of vehicles like the Falcon XX. Given their track record on the Falcon 1, Falcon 9, and Dragon to date we might get more for less.

Via CNET Crave.